Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2020
Late clinical outcomes of lambre versus amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schnupp Steffen, Liu Xiao-Xia, Buffle Eric, Gloekler Steffen, Mohrez Yamen, Cheikh-Ibrahim Mohammad, Allakkis Wasim, Brachmann Johannes, Park Jai-Wun, Kleinecke Caroline
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The LAmbre (LifeTech Scientific, Shenzhen, China) is a novel occluder for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation. This study compares late clinical outcomes of LAmbre and the established Amplatzer devices (Abbott, St Paul, MN).
METHODS: Between 2012 and 2018, 265 consecutive patients underwent LAAC with LAmbre and Amplatzer devices at a single center. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 40 (LAmbre) vs 107 (Amplatzer) patients were compared by the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all the above-mentioned hazards.
RESULTS: The mean age 75.6 ± 8.9 (LAmbre) vs 75.5 ± 9.0 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2 DS2 -VASc score 4.8 ± 1.7 vs 4.8 ± 1.7 and HAS-BLED score 3.1 ± 0.9 vs 3.2 ± 0.8 were similar. After 3.6 ± 1.9 vs 2.5 ± 1.4 years, the clinical efficacy (12/146, 8.2% [LAmbre] vs 28/266, 10.5% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-1.40; P = .34) and safety (5/146, 3.4% vs 14/266, 5.3%; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.14-1.6; P = .22), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (15/146, 10.3% vs 36/266, 13.6%; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.36-1.25; P = .21) were comparable.
CONCLUSION: In the presented report, in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, the LAmbre offered similar long-term efficacy and safety in comparison to Amplatzer devices.
METHODS: Between 2012 and 2018, 265 consecutive patients underwent LAAC with LAmbre and Amplatzer devices at a single center. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 40 (LAmbre) vs 107 (Amplatzer) patients were compared by the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all the above-mentioned hazards.
RESULTS: The mean age 75.6 ± 8.9 (LAmbre) vs 75.5 ± 9.0 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2 DS2 -VASc score 4.8 ± 1.7 vs 4.8 ± 1.7 and HAS-BLED score 3.1 ± 0.9 vs 3.2 ± 0.8 were similar. After 3.6 ± 1.9 vs 2.5 ± 1.4 years, the clinical efficacy (12/146, 8.2% [LAmbre] vs 28/266, 10.5% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-1.40; P = .34) and safety (5/146, 3.4% vs 14/266, 5.3%; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.14-1.6; P = .22), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (15/146, 10.3% vs 36/266, 13.6%; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.36-1.25; P = .21) were comparable.
CONCLUSION: In the presented report, in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, the LAmbre offered similar long-term efficacy and safety in comparison to Amplatzer devices.